I signed up for a free two-week trial of Napster recently, and my trial has just ended. I decided not to continue with the service, but I was intrigued by many of the comments I read in the Napster message boards while I was there. It seems that the two main arguments of those who support Napster are that iTunes users are stupid, and that Apple doesn’t offer choice like Napster does.
Stupid
I wish I was kidding about the “stupid” part, but over and over I saw messages from people claiming that it would take an especially stupid person to buy an iPod, since you’d have to spend $10,000 to fill it up. They seem to be parroting the expensive marketing campaign; Napster’s CEO said prior to its launch that, “We’re going to be communicating to people that it’s stupid to buy an iPod.” What sort of service hopes to succeed in the market by calling their potential customers stupid? Anyway, $10,000. I’m pretty sure I’ve spent that much on music in my life, but I think I’m an exception. And yet iPods are flying off the shelves! How on earth are all of these people able to afford the $10,000 it takes to fill up an iPod?
The answer is that the iPod doesn’t just accept FairPlay-encoded AAC files, but can also store and play un-encrypted AAC files as well as MP3 files, so everybody can rip and transfer their entire existing CD collection before ever buying a single track from the iTunes Music Store. For that matter, people can load their iPods up with tracks they’ve pirated, or created themselves, or downloaded for free (Apple offers four free tracks per week, and many bands have free tracks available on their websites). I won’t say that nobody is buying 10,000 tracks from the iTMS, since I remember Apple reporting one person had bought twice that many, but most people have an existing music collection.
Choice
Which leaves choice. But what do they mean by choice? The general argument seems to be that an iPod limits you to the iTunes Music Store, and the iTunes Music Store limits you to the iPod. With Napster, however, you can use one of several different portable players from several different manufacturers, and with one of those players you can use music from Napster, or Wal-mart, or some other source. That sounds pretty good, right?
But choice is really more elusive than that. There is a choice of formats: While MP3 is the standard, online stores with major-label material are offering one of three protected formats: FairPlay-encoded AAC (from Apple), encrypted WMA (from Microsoft), or ATRAC (from Sony).
There is also choice in hardware, but it is closely related to the choice in formats. Nobody’s players but Sony’s plays ATRAC songs, and nobody’s players but Apple’s play FairPlay songs, and nobody’s players but Microsoft’s play WMA songs. Well, several different hardware manufacturers sell products licensed by Microsoft, and HP and Motorola sells products licensed by Apple, but those are generally the three choices: Sony, Apple, or Microsoft.
Although a very minor point, there is also choice in software, and there just might be three people in the world to whom this really matters. I don’t know what programs support Sony’s ATRAC, but the only programs I know of that support Apple’s FairPlay are iTunes (for Mac and Windows) and VLC (with a little tweaking on non-Mac platforms, such as Linux). Microsoft’s WMA can be played with many different Windows applications, but apparently only on Windows. There is another factor in software choice, too. You can buy WMA tracks using several different software clients, each one tied to a specific vendor. Use the Napster client to buy tracks from Napster, iTunes to buy tracks from Apple, and so on. While it might at first seem like an advantage to be able to buy WMA music from more than one vendor, service restrictions tend to make that difficult, so it isn’t as much an advantage as it first appears.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - SFC SKI
"The reasoning behind both arguments is flawed, since most people would do neither."
Got it in one. Great post, thanks.
2 - StandardAI
That's pretty stupid to say that only Apple has the rights to AAC.
3 - Eric Berlin
I suspect I'm a fairly typical iPod owner: I heard iTunes was super easy to use and free. As soon as I got a decent computer with lots of storage space, I set up iTunes and spent several days ripping the hundreds of CDs that I owned. It was easy and the ability to kick back or work while rolling through thousands of songs on shuffle mode was bliss. I've since added a bunch of songs that I bought from the iTunes store alongside a track or two that I obtained via "other means." Add in the iPod, and I can walk/exercise/drive with whatever I want, whatever I want it (including feeding podcasts).
So am I stupid? Maybe I am. But I'm pretty happy about it.
4 - RJ
I'm still in the Dark Age. No iPod here!
But I do use...uh..."other sources" to find songs I like online. For free, to boot!
Then I can listen to them on my computer, or burn them to a CD.
Works for me!
5 - Matt
Phil--great article. No question that Napster is Apple's bitch, and will be as long as you are a slave to Napster vis a vis the rental format. One question--when you download from iTunes (something I've yet to do) do you have a choice of format, or is it automatically AAC? If its only AAC--do most burning software apps recognize that as a burnable format? Why can't you just rip it from AAC to MP3 without burning to a CD? Thanks
Eric B--You just described my iPod experience to a T, except for buying from iTunes, Haven't done that yet. I guess I am stupid, and loving it!
6 - Aaman
iTunes is better than Napster, but it's many notches below Windows Media Player, at least as a media player - not as a store. Store-wise, it is fine.
One of the main reasons I prefer Windows Media Player is the fact that I can play and catalog multiple media types - music, video, etc. iTunes doesn't do that - yet. Also, I find more support for the media formats used on my players and media sources.
7 - Phillip Winn
Matt, as far as I know, you can only burn FairPlay-encoded AAC files from within iTunes itself. iTunes makes it pretty easy to burn a CD, but the "convert to MP3" menu item that is available for non-protected AAC files (and AIFF files, and others) is grayed out with a FairPlay-protected song. There is probably a way to hack things, but I try to stick with relatively mainstream methods for things.
Aaman, WMP doesn't run on my Mac, or rather I should say that the WMP on my Mac doesn't have any of the features you describe. Since I run iTunes there, I find it pretty easy to run iTunes on my windows box, too. I used to run Winamp and Macamp to accomplish much the same thing.
I tend to use VLC to play video, which handles things even WMP chokes on -- which are pretty rare, I'll grant.
8 - Shawn King
"One question--when you download from iTunes (something I've yet to do) do you have a choice of format, or is it automatically AAC?"
Automagically AAC format.
"If its only AAC--do most burning software apps recognize that as a burnable format?"
Hmmm....good question....I've only ever used iTunes for my burns so I have no idea.
"Why can't you just rip it from AAC to MP3 without burning to a CD?"
Apple imposed limitation.
BTW, great article detailing the differences.
9 - Phillip Winn
Oh yes, sorry, I should have answered the first part. It's not only always AAC, it's always 128kbps FairPlay-encoded AAC.
Napster, to be even-handed, is always 128kbps Whatever-encoded WMA.
There are websites that exist in the gray areas of non-North American copyright law that offer lots of format choices, but none of the U.S.-based major-label commercial services offer any choice at all that I've seen.
Thanks, all. I wondered if I was over-simplifying or making it to complex, but hoping I hit the sweet spot. :-)
10 - john
Am I the only person on the planet who uses his iPod for his German lessons?
11 - Matt
umm....yes.
12 - SFC SKI
I would use the iPod for foreign language lessons and audiobooks, as soon as I get around to it.
I rip CD's to my iTunes folder and then load my iPod, I don't have a CD burner, nor do I need one to load up my iPod.
13 - bpc
Here's the major difference for me right of the bat.
iTunes: You download it, install it and can browse the store right away. No one asks you for any info till your ready to buy something.
Napster: Download, install, then it asks you for a username, credit card info. I hate this
14 - Phillip Winn
bpc, true, but then Napster also gives you free full-length samples in exchange for that credit card info, at least during the initial trial.
15 - btn
Napster + 10,000 songs to fill an iPod = $0.00 (if you take advantage of their 14-day free trial and strip the DRM, which probably violates Napster's service agreement and some law...) Thank you, Napster, for helping AAPL to sell more iPods! I especially appreciate the 30-second spots where you prominently display the Apple logo on TV. :)
16 - Phillip Winn
I doubt one could download 10,000 songs in 336 hours, and I couldn't find anywhere remotely close to that that I actually wanted and don't already have.
But yeah, there definitely are people out there taking advantage of the trial to download music and strip the DRM (though the Winamp method has apparently been disabled, as I mentioned in the post).
It's tough to be the underdog, and doubly-tough when the market leader isn't fat and lazy. Apple isn't, yet, and the iPod still has everybody beat design-wise, with the patents in place to ensure that continues. I wouldn't like to have the job of selling Napster, which is probably why they had to resort to someone who thinks "stupid" is a great way to gain customers.
17 - Lono
I have an iPod and have filled it with 3,500 songs, and not bought a single one through iTunes. I catalogue all my Cds on my PC now... and so do it through ITunes (you don't much have a choice with the iPod). the only downer in all of this (and it is a big one) is the redudancy.
I have so filled up my PC with 20 gigs of CD music for my iPod that this weekend I am going to get an external hard drive for my PC (80 gigs, about $100) to move all my music to.
So, I have all my Cds. Plus, I have them all burned onto my computer. So, I can move them all to my iPod. So instead of storing 400 Cds, I am basically storing 1200. My plan though is to move all the music off my PC onto the hard drive. Then, box up all my Cds (they are obsolete), and just work off my iPod. The hard drive is for back up, basically, in case someone snakes my iPod.
18 - Temple Stark
>>What happens if you ever decide to quit paying $9.95 a month? All of the music quits working.
This was your lede.
Nice piece. I'd be an iTunes / Apple user because I'm on a Mac. Still it was interesting - and not laid out too simplistically for a general audience - to read how you detailed the differences.
I haven't yet bought from the iTunes store but almost have a few times. There just hasn't been something I absolutely need. Yet.
And I was going to say it's the new Navigator vs. Explorer (until I realized that sounded like a battle of the SUVs), but you pointed out that Apple hasn't grown lazy - yet. They get a little control freakish, but lazy never ever comes to mind when I think of Apple.
I also don't own an iPod as my computer at work and at home is filled with music.
19 - Joss Rowlands
Great article, Phil.
Here's my 2 cents worth...
I'm an Apple user, and have been for 20 years. I love iTunes, and equate the process of downloading music from the ITMS and burning to CD to that of going to the store, picking up my CD/Album, getting back on the bus, going home and putting said CD/album into a player or onto a turntable. The big advantage of the iPod is I can take it with me for listening to books,music and my Italian lessons(!).
I've tried Napster, and just found the process of 'renting' music to be silly. After all, if I pay for something, I prefer to own it.
20 - Phillip Winn
Temple, I realize that is the most important bit in the article for many, but leading with that would put this article into the "anti-Napster" category in many people's minds before they had a chance to read the balanced view.
I thought I was pretty fair, though in the end, I'm a buyer and not a renter. Burying the lede was the only way to be fair, I suspect.
21 - Temple Stark
Didn't think of it that way.
Oh yeah it was definitely fair. You gave it a go without ripping on it sight unseen - and then you explained why yoou didn't like it. A good read, indeed. If I could "Advance" it, I would :-)
22 - Aaman
I'm with Temple here - although I own a few portable players, almost every where I go is filled with media sources, and populated with music - meaning I do not use my portable players much.
I would never sign up for a rental music service though - a film rental service is another deal - can't live without it:)
23 - Ruben
I own an ipod and I am an itunes user. Recetly i bought a smaller flash player to workout and soon discover that had to unprotect my entire library if i wanted to listen those tracks in my new device. Frankly Apple design is unbeatable, and itunes usability and content offering is amazing but pisses me off that Apple doesn't let me avail freely of music that i've paid and own .
I recently installed Napster and has three nice feature vs itunes:
1/ i can play the music i buy anywhere i want
2/ wma encoding takes half the space than mp3, means i can store twice the amount of tracks in my small device
3/ even if my flash device is not napster to go compatible, i can still drag and drop music from my library into the flash device from Napster nice ui.
24 - Chris
I have both an iPod/iTunes and Napster account. Because I spend more time in front of the computer than on the go, Napster's streaming works for me. I listen to MORE than $9.95 worth of music a month, so I couldn't recoup that kind of volume by paying $0.99 a track.
On the other hand, when I DO want to keep a track, I download it from Napster or iTunes, whomever has it, burn it and put it on the iPod.
I don't see why people are so intent on one over the other. The whole "adverse to renting" is bull, since you "rent" your phone number, "rent" your car (until you turn it in for a new one), and many people "rent" apartments, which is a far greater sin, IMHO, than "renting" your music.
25 - Phillip Winn
Chris, I own a home and two cars, renting none of the above. I own my telephone, too. Phone service is a service, but it is transient, unlike music. Napster is betting that people will view music the same way anyway. I think they're overly optimistic, but the market will let us know for sure.
Ruben, Napster doesn't let you "avail freely of music that you've paid and own," either. Try sticking some of those songs on your iPod! You can only play your Microsoft-protected songs on Microsoft-approved devices, just as with Apple.
You own one player that is compatible with each service, and neither player is compatible with the other. And yet you single out Apple as incompatible. That's darn fine marketing on the part of Napster, but it's factually inaccurate.